_ink_

Looking at the comments I seem to be the minority, but I appreciated the honesty to say, look we want to use AI and if you don't then this company is not a good fit anymore. Now they will let go these people anyway, but in a less transparent way.

> Youtube meh, like always (weird that it doesn't kill it)

It's a huuuge training set, why would they kill that?

There are plenty of comments complaining about paywalls, I never saw a comment like yours below one. But it's the same thing. Buy ft, nyt, bloomberg, youtube, whatever and spend $500 month to read a single article or watch a single video per month on that specific site. It's ridiculous and broken and it's ok to complain about it.

"work on the weekend for free" aka move the risk (of wasted resources) to the employee. Excellent advice.

How about fostering a working culture were employees get a chance of trying out new things during office hours? Especially since AI is rising productivity so much.

Probably interesting, but unwatchable with ads every two sentences.

What is the difference between having the agent create a spec and having the agent create a plan?

I think it's still a shitty move and I feel deceived. I opted out of training and it's impossible to see for me (in any practical sense, sure it's somewhere in the ToS) that this simple question leads to my data being stored for 5 years and potentially read by human reviewers.

If I opted out, then don't ask me this deceiving question or make it very obvious that answering it has these consequences.

Is this also the case when you answer that how is Claude doing question in Claude Code?

If AI really scales indefinitely is an increase in efficiency even bearish for Nvidia? Wouldn't they still build more and more compute as fast as they can, because these things get smarter and better with more compute?

I would go further and make them liable for what they show. Sure it's user created content. But the feed is entirely curated by them. They decide what to show and what not and they should be liable as such.

It might be an advantage actually. Wero is a clusterfuck in Germany because it is backed by banks. In Germany there is not a single Wero App, but every bank wanted to implement it in their own app. Now you have the situation that a) some people cannot use it, because their bank decided to not implement at all b) each bank decides what features they implement as well as the timeframe. Some can pay online others cannot, yet, some won't at all. Some can pay in stores, others cannot, yet, some won't at all.

It's essentially dead before it has started. This is something Taler could do better. The real danger for Taker is the digital Euro, which I hope they really implement.

An Anthropic researcher offers his view on the foreseeable future and gives advice for young researchers. (sorry for the x link, I didn't find it somewhere else)

The same question goes the other way as well. If a constitution does not have a slavery clause and now people want to add it, should they be allowed to do that?

I read into your question, that they should be allowed to do that. The question is, why should they?